All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Cc: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	"Luis R . Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
	Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	kexec@lists.infradead.org, Andres Rodriguez <andresx7@gmail.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
	Jeff Vander Stoep <jeffv@google.com>,
	Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 8/8] module: replace the existing LSM hook in init_module
Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 19:14:05 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1527635645.3534.39.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHC9VhQL+CsqKL83fSZhjEZVSjKKfmLULvehXZ8SZhtK5xzLMQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, 2018-05-29 at 18:39 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
[...]
> > @@ -4043,6 +4037,25 @@ static int selinux_kernel_module_from_file(struct file *file)
> >                                 SYSTEM__MODULE_LOAD, &ad);
> >  }
> >
> > +static int selinux_kernel_load_data(enum kernel_load_data_id id)
> > +{
> > +       u32 sid;
> > +       int rc = 0;
> > +
> > +       switch (id) {
> > +       case LOADING_MODULE:
> > +               sid = current_sid();
> > +
> > +               /* init_module */
> > +               return avc_has_perm(&selinux_state, sid, sid, SECCLASS_SYSTEM,
> > +                                   SYSTEM__MODULE_LOAD, NULL);
> > +       default:
> > +               break;
> > +       }
> > +
> > +       return rc;
> > +}
> 
> I'm not a fan of the duplication here.  If we must have a new LSM hook
> for this, can we at least have it call
> selinux_kernel_module_from_file() so we have all the kernel module
> loading logic/controls in one function?  Yes, I understand there are
> differences between init_module() and finit_module() but I like
> handling them both in one function as we do today.

There's some disagreement as to whether we really need two LSM hooks.
 This sounds like you would prefer a single LSM hook, not the two that
this patch set introduces.

We need to come to some consensus.  (Comments appreciated in 0/8.)

Mimi

> 
> >  static int selinux_kernel_read_file(struct file *file,
> >                                     enum kernel_read_file_id id)
> >  {
> > @@ -6950,6 +6963,7 @@ static struct security_hook_list selinux_hooks[] __lsm_ro_after_init = {
> >         LSM_HOOK_INIT(kernel_act_as, selinux_kernel_act_as),
> >         LSM_HOOK_INIT(kernel_create_files_as, selinux_kernel_create_files_as),
> >         LSM_HOOK_INIT(kernel_module_request, selinux_kernel_module_request),
> > +       LSM_HOOK_INIT(kernel_load_data, selinux_kernel_load_data),
> >         LSM_HOOK_INIT(kernel_read_file, selinux_kernel_read_file),
> >         LSM_HOOK_INIT(task_setpgid, selinux_task_setpgid),
> >         LSM_HOOK_INIT(task_getpgid, selinux_task_getpgid),
> > --
> > 2.7.5
> >
> 


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com (Mimi Zohar)
To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v4 8/8] module: replace the existing LSM hook in init_module
Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 19:14:05 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1527635645.3534.39.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHC9VhQL+CsqKL83fSZhjEZVSjKKfmLULvehXZ8SZhtK5xzLMQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, 2018-05-29 at 18:39 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
[...]
> > @@ -4043,6 +4037,25 @@ static int selinux_kernel_module_from_file(struct file *file)
> >                                 SYSTEM__MODULE_LOAD, &ad);
> >  }
> >
> > +static int selinux_kernel_load_data(enum kernel_load_data_id id)
> > +{
> > +       u32 sid;
> > +       int rc = 0;
> > +
> > +       switch (id) {
> > +       case LOADING_MODULE:
> > +               sid = current_sid();
> > +
> > +               /* init_module */
> > +               return avc_has_perm(&selinux_state, sid, sid, SECCLASS_SYSTEM,
> > +                                   SYSTEM__MODULE_LOAD, NULL);
> > +       default:
> > +               break;
> > +       }
> > +
> > +       return rc;
> > +}
> 
> I'm not a fan of the duplication here.  If we must have a new LSM hook
> for this, can we at least have it call
> selinux_kernel_module_from_file() so we have all the kernel module
> loading logic/controls in one function?  Yes, I understand there are
> differences between init_module() and finit_module() but I like
> handling them both in one function as we do today.

There's some disagreement as to whether we really need two LSM hooks.
?This sounds like you would prefer a single LSM hook, not the two that
this patch set introduces.

We need to come to some consensus. ?(Comments appreciated in 0/8.)

Mimi

> 
> >  static int selinux_kernel_read_file(struct file *file,
> >                                     enum kernel_read_file_id id)
> >  {
> > @@ -6950,6 +6963,7 @@ static struct security_hook_list selinux_hooks[] __lsm_ro_after_init = {
> >         LSM_HOOK_INIT(kernel_act_as, selinux_kernel_act_as),
> >         LSM_HOOK_INIT(kernel_create_files_as, selinux_kernel_create_files_as),
> >         LSM_HOOK_INIT(kernel_module_request, selinux_kernel_module_request),
> > +       LSM_HOOK_INIT(kernel_load_data, selinux_kernel_load_data),
> >         LSM_HOOK_INIT(kernel_read_file, selinux_kernel_read_file),
> >         LSM_HOOK_INIT(task_setpgid, selinux_task_setpgid),
> >         LSM_HOOK_INIT(task_getpgid, selinux_task_getpgid),
> > --
> > 2.7.5
> >
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Cc: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	"Luis R . Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
	Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	kexec@lists.infradead.org, Andres Rodriguez <andresx7@gmail.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
	Jeff Vander Stoep <jeffv@google.com>,
	Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 8/8] module: replace the existing LSM hook in init_module
Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 19:14:05 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1527635645.3534.39.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHC9VhQL+CsqKL83fSZhjEZVSjKKfmLULvehXZ8SZhtK5xzLMQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, 2018-05-29 at 18:39 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
[...]
> > @@ -4043,6 +4037,25 @@ static int selinux_kernel_module_from_file(struct file *file)
> >                                 SYSTEM__MODULE_LOAD, &ad);
> >  }
> >
> > +static int selinux_kernel_load_data(enum kernel_load_data_id id)
> > +{
> > +       u32 sid;
> > +       int rc = 0;
> > +
> > +       switch (id) {
> > +       case LOADING_MODULE:
> > +               sid = current_sid();
> > +
> > +               /* init_module */
> > +               return avc_has_perm(&selinux_state, sid, sid, SECCLASS_SYSTEM,
> > +                                   SYSTEM__MODULE_LOAD, NULL);
> > +       default:
> > +               break;
> > +       }
> > +
> > +       return rc;
> > +}
> 
> I'm not a fan of the duplication here.  If we must have a new LSM hook
> for this, can we at least have it call
> selinux_kernel_module_from_file() so we have all the kernel module
> loading logic/controls in one function?  Yes, I understand there are
> differences between init_module() and finit_module() but I like
> handling them both in one function as we do today.

There's some disagreement as to whether we really need two LSM hooks.
 This sounds like you would prefer a single LSM hook, not the two that
this patch set introduces.

We need to come to some consensus.  (Comments appreciated in 0/8.)

Mimi

> 
> >  static int selinux_kernel_read_file(struct file *file,
> >                                     enum kernel_read_file_id id)
> >  {
> > @@ -6950,6 +6963,7 @@ static struct security_hook_list selinux_hooks[] __lsm_ro_after_init = {
> >         LSM_HOOK_INIT(kernel_act_as, selinux_kernel_act_as),
> >         LSM_HOOK_INIT(kernel_create_files_as, selinux_kernel_create_files_as),
> >         LSM_HOOK_INIT(kernel_module_request, selinux_kernel_module_request),
> > +       LSM_HOOK_INIT(kernel_load_data, selinux_kernel_load_data),
> >         LSM_HOOK_INIT(kernel_read_file, selinux_kernel_read_file),
> >         LSM_HOOK_INIT(task_setpgid, selinux_task_setpgid),
> >         LSM_HOOK_INIT(task_getpgid, selinux_task_getpgid),
> > --
> > 2.7.5
> >
> 

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	"Luis R . Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
	Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	Jeff Vander Stoep <jeffv@google.com>,
	Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
	linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
	Andres Rodriguez <andresx7@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 8/8] module: replace the existing LSM hook in init_module
Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 19:14:05 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1527635645.3534.39.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHC9VhQL+CsqKL83fSZhjEZVSjKKfmLULvehXZ8SZhtK5xzLMQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, 2018-05-29 at 18:39 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
[...]
> > @@ -4043,6 +4037,25 @@ static int selinux_kernel_module_from_file(struct file *file)
> >                                 SYSTEM__MODULE_LOAD, &ad);
> >  }
> >
> > +static int selinux_kernel_load_data(enum kernel_load_data_id id)
> > +{
> > +       u32 sid;
> > +       int rc = 0;
> > +
> > +       switch (id) {
> > +       case LOADING_MODULE:
> > +               sid = current_sid();
> > +
> > +               /* init_module */
> > +               return avc_has_perm(&selinux_state, sid, sid, SECCLASS_SYSTEM,
> > +                                   SYSTEM__MODULE_LOAD, NULL);
> > +       default:
> > +               break;
> > +       }
> > +
> > +       return rc;
> > +}
> 
> I'm not a fan of the duplication here.  If we must have a new LSM hook
> for this, can we at least have it call
> selinux_kernel_module_from_file() so we have all the kernel module
> loading logic/controls in one function?  Yes, I understand there are
> differences between init_module() and finit_module() but I like
> handling them both in one function as we do today.

There's some disagreement as to whether we really need two LSM hooks.
 This sounds like you would prefer a single LSM hook, not the two that
this patch set introduces.

We need to come to some consensus.  (Comments appreciated in 0/8.)

Mimi

> 
> >  static int selinux_kernel_read_file(struct file *file,
> >                                     enum kernel_read_file_id id)
> >  {
> > @@ -6950,6 +6963,7 @@ static struct security_hook_list selinux_hooks[] __lsm_ro_after_init = {
> >         LSM_HOOK_INIT(kernel_act_as, selinux_kernel_act_as),
> >         LSM_HOOK_INIT(kernel_create_files_as, selinux_kernel_create_files_as),
> >         LSM_HOOK_INIT(kernel_module_request, selinux_kernel_module_request),
> > +       LSM_HOOK_INIT(kernel_load_data, selinux_kernel_load_data),
> >         LSM_HOOK_INIT(kernel_read_file, selinux_kernel_read_file),
> >         LSM_HOOK_INIT(task_setpgid, selinux_task_setpgid),
> >         LSM_HOOK_INIT(task_getpgid, selinux_task_getpgid),
> > --
> > 2.7.5
> >
> 


_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec

  reply	other threads:[~2018-05-29 23:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 139+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-05-29 18:01 [PATCH v4 0/8] kexec/firmware: support system wide policy requiring signatures Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:01 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:01 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:01 ` [PATCH v4 1/8] security: define new LSM hook named security_kernel_load_data Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:01   ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:01   ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-04 19:59   ` Serge E. Hallyn
2018-06-04 19:59     ` Serge E. Hallyn
2018-06-04 19:59     ` Serge E. Hallyn
2018-05-29 18:01 ` [PATCH v4 2/8] kexec: add call to LSM hook in original kexec_load syscall Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:01   ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:01   ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-04 20:00   ` Serge E. Hallyn
2018-06-04 20:00     ` Serge E. Hallyn
2018-06-04 20:00     ` Serge E. Hallyn
2018-05-29 18:01 ` [PATCH v4 3/8] ima: based on policy require signed kexec kernel images Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:01   ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:01   ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:01 ` [PATCH v4 4/8] firmware: add call to LSM hook before firmware sysfs fallback Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:01   ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:01   ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-01 18:19   ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-06-01 18:19     ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-06-01 18:19     ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-05-29 18:01 ` [PATCH v4 5/8] ima: based on policy require signed firmware (sysfs fallback) Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:01   ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:01   ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-01 18:21   ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-06-01 18:21     ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-06-01 18:21     ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-06-01 22:39     ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-01 22:39       ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-01 22:39       ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-01 22:39       ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-01 22:46       ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-06-01 22:46         ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-06-01 22:46         ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-06-01 22:46         ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-06-01 23:04         ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-01 23:04           ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-01 23:04           ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-01 23:04           ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:01 ` [PATCH v4 6/8] ima: add build time policy Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:01   ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:01   ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:01 ` [RFC PATCH v4 7/8] ima: based on policy prevent loading firmware (pre-allocated buffer) Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:01   ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:01   ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-01 19:15   ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-06-01 19:15     ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-06-01 19:15     ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-06-01 19:25     ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-06-01 19:25       ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-06-01 19:25       ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-06-05 22:37       ` Kees Cook
2018-06-05 22:37         ` Kees Cook
2018-06-05 22:37         ` Kees Cook
2018-06-06  6:20         ` Ard Biesheuvel
2018-06-06  6:20           ` Ard Biesheuvel
2018-06-06  6:20           ` Ard Biesheuvel
2018-06-06 22:06           ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-06-06 22:06             ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-06-06 22:06             ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-05-29 18:02 ` [PATCH v4 8/8] module: replace the existing LSM hook in init_module Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:02   ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:02   ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 22:39   ` Paul Moore
2018-05-29 22:39     ` Paul Moore
2018-05-29 22:39     ` Paul Moore
2018-05-29 23:14     ` Mimi Zohar [this message]
2018-05-29 23:14       ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 23:14       ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 23:14       ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-30 21:00       ` Paul Moore
2018-05-30 21:00         ` Paul Moore
2018-05-30 21:00         ` Paul Moore
2018-05-31 15:23         ` [PATCH v4a " Mimi Zohar
2018-05-31 15:23           ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-31 15:23           ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-01 22:28           ` Paul Moore
2018-06-01 22:28             ` Paul Moore
2018-06-01 22:28             ` Paul Moore
2018-06-04  9:19           ` Jessica Yu
2018-06-04  9:19             ` Jessica Yu
2018-06-04  9:19             ` Jessica Yu
2018-06-05 19:45           ` Kees Cook
2018-06-05 19:45             ` Kees Cook
2018-06-05 19:45             ` Kees Cook
2018-06-05 21:35             ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-05 21:35               ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-05 21:35               ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-05 21:35               ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-05 22:26               ` Kees Cook
2018-06-05 22:26                 ` Kees Cook
2018-06-05 22:26                 ` Kees Cook
2018-06-05 22:40                 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-05 22:40                   ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-05 22:40                   ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-05 22:40                   ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 23:25     ` [PATCH v4 " Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 23:25       ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 23:25       ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 23:25       ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-30  2:25     ` Eric W. Biederman
2018-05-30  2:25       ` Eric W. Biederman
2018-05-30  2:25       ` Eric W. Biederman
2018-05-30 21:09       ` Paul Moore
2018-05-30 21:09         ` Paul Moore
2018-05-30 21:09         ` Paul Moore
2018-06-04 14:03 ` [PATCH v4 0/8] kexec/firmware: support system wide policy requiring signatures Mimi Zohar
2018-06-04 14:03   ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-04 14:03   ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-04 14:03   ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-04 19:32   ` Serge E. Hallyn
2018-06-04 19:32     ` Serge E. Hallyn
2018-06-04 19:32     ` Serge E. Hallyn
2018-06-04 19:32     ` Serge E. Hallyn
2018-06-04 19:53     ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-04 19:53       ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-04 19:53       ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-04 19:53       ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-04 22:03   ` Kees Cook
2018-06-04 22:03     ` Kees Cook
2018-06-04 22:03     ` Kees Cook
2018-06-05  4:09     ` Serge E. Hallyn
2018-06-05  4:09       ` Serge E. Hallyn
2018-06-05  4:09       ` Serge E. Hallyn
2018-06-05 12:19       ` Kees Cook
2018-06-05 12:19         ` Kees Cook
2018-06-05 12:19         ` Kees Cook
2018-06-05 13:25         ` Serge E. Hallyn
2018-06-05 13:25           ` Serge E. Hallyn
2018-06-05 13:25           ` Serge E. Hallyn
2018-06-05 13:43           ` Kees Cook
2018-06-05 13:43             ` Kees Cook
2018-06-05 13:43             ` Kees Cook
2018-06-05 14:05             ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-05 14:05               ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-05 14:05               ` Mimi Zohar

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1527635645.3534.39.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=andresx7@gmail.com \
    --cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
    --cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=jeffv@google.com \
    --cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
    --cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.